The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

PulpExposure wrote:

SkinsFreak wrote:My current line of thinking is this... if they stay at #6, they take Landry. If they are able to trade down, they take Brandon Merriwether in the 1st, and a solid DE with their 2nd round pick they got for trading down.

You remember that Merriweather was the guy who in the Miami-Florida International brawl, took off his helmet and hit the guy in the head with it, right?

Yes, I do.

Judging a players conduct, on and off the field, as well as his character when facing adversity, is paramount in player evaluation. There is no question he did a stupid thing and something I don't condone.

Gibbs is known for his people skills and his knack for connecting with players, as well as being a good judge of character. I also think Santana, Rocky, Sean, and especially Clinton would help Joe guide the young player, much like I think they did when Sean was having problems.

So if they did take a chance on him, and I'm not saying it's a foregone conclusion, but I think Gibbs will have done his due diligence and will also have some valuable help, in the form of leadership from the other boys from the U, that would ultimately help with the maturation process of Brandon.

I live in South Florida and see a lot of Hurricane or "The U" coverage, and I don't think he is all that bad, even though he did do something that was really stupid, and I'm a character guy.

But that's just one man's opinion.

SkinsFreak wrote:My current line of thinking is this... if they stay at #6, they take Landry. If they are able to trade down, they take Brandon Merriwether in the 1st, and a solid DE with their 2nd round pick they got for trading down.

I hope you're right. Either of these options would work out well for us. If we do trade down and get a 1st and 2nd, I agree safety 1st, and DE 2nd since according to Mike Mayock, there are around TEN strong DE prospects. I'm also a believer in taking the best player available if at all possible, and Landry if nothing else, is one of the top "athletes" in this draft. We obviously need some help at DE though, so lets hope any trade down is for 2 picks and not a pick and LANCE BRIGGS!

If no trade down, then we can load up on DE with our late rounders and hope someone surprises like Golston, meanwhile maybe AC can continue his upswing and Phillip Daniels can get healthy for one more year til next draft when we pick 32nd .

BTW, here is the latest from John Clayton:

Skins stuck at No. 6?
<Apr. 11> At the moment, the Redskins are pessimistic about their chances of trading out of the No. 6 spot, according to John Clayton. The Lance Briggs trade is pretty well dead from the Redskins' standpoint. Talks of moving up and moving down have been difficult. The Redskins may have to pick, which could put them in a position to take safety LaRon Landry of LSU. The Redskins don't appear to be thrilled with Clemson defensive end Gaines Adams as the sixth pick even though they have a need for a pass-rushing defensive end.


This is the first "in the know" source that I've heard hinting at interest in Landry specifically, and John Clayton usually knows his stuff.

Man, what a pair of safeties that would be, with both being versatile enough to play either position, GW could really cause some confusion.

And all the while that our new stellar safety partnership was creating confusion, opposition running backs would be pounding their way into our secondary, and opposition quarterbacks would be sitting back in the pocket smoking cigars.

I have nothing against Landry as a player (not yet anyway, I haven't spent any time reading up on safeties), but when exactly did safety become our need position?

There is an argument that says that when you're picking as high as #6, then you pick the best player available, regardless of need. But another safety from the top 10? I'm not sure that makes a lot of sense.

PulpExposure wrote:..You remember that Merriweather was the guy who in the Miami-Florida International brawl, took off his helmet and hit the guy in the head with it, right?

Not that that is a bad thing Some might think that was a good move - I mean, if he had hit him with his fist he might have injured himself - this is obviously a "heads up" player, could be an asset. And, he's from the U - we need more of these guys

UK Skins Fan wrote:And all the while that our new stellar safety partnership was creating confusion, opposition running backs would be pounding their way into our secondary, and opposition quarterbacks would be sitting back in the pocket smoking cigars.

With all do respect, I don’t think that would be the case at all.

Let’s take a minute to rationalize this move for LaRon Landry.

First of all, there in no argument from anyone that the Skins are in need of d-line help. A few months ago, every fan and every expert were projecting the Skins to draft a d-linemen with the #6 pick. Some said Adams or Branch and others said Anderson or Okoye. Now, 14 days before the draft, experts like Kiper, Clayton and others, have a much different opinion. Why? What’s happened to the initial projections and what's happened since then?

Well… what’s happened is the combine, scouting, interviews and endless hours of film review and study.

Next, there has been no consensus by any of the experts as to who the best DT or the best DE is, although Adams is currently leading the bunch. There has been varying opinions between Adams, Anderson, Branch and Okoye. Recently, Branch and Anderson have been falling quickly on draft boards around the league. There has been question’s raised regarding their work ethic, weight and eating habits.

There is however, no disagreement, what so ever, across the board, as to who the best safety is in this years draft, and that is LaRon Landry.

Let’s take a brief look at the Skins defense. If everyone can put on their memory caps for a minute, it was our secondary that took a beating in the early stages of the 2006 season. Specifically, it was the middle of the field in our secondary where our defense was exploited. Williams was forced to make a change by dropping everyone back into pass coverage as a way to remedy this problem. We all know the injuries that were sustained to every unit on our defense last year and Williams had to compensate for that.

Well, when you only rush four guys, limit the amount of stunts and blitzes, and drop everyone back into coverage, it is difficult to get pressure on the QB and to generate sacks. That is a fact. Let’s not forget the term used a lot in the NFL, the term known as a “coverage sack”. The point being, when you have confidence in your secondary, you are free to create more schemes to get pressure on the QB, in the form of stunts, LB and safety blitzes and corner blitzes, all things we know Williams likes to do and something he had to shy away from last year, due to the significant amount of injuries.

Apart from Taylor, our current crop of safety’s are average at best. I would rate Prioleau slightly better than average, but he is coming off a major injury. Players coming off these types of injuries take time to rebound; Jansen was a perfect example of this last year, coming off the Achilles injury. He had a tender foot and was not very confident, therefore affecting his level of play. But, we now have depth at the safety position, something we hear about around here all the time; needing depth. So now we have it.

Then, we have to take into consideration the size of the contract, and the amount of guaranteed money the #6 pick will command. With no general consensus as to the best d-linemen out there, it would be less of a risk to give that contract and guaranteed money to a guy like Landry, much like they did with Taylor.

Landry would be well worth it. He makes tons of plays in the backfield and has no problem getting to the QB with his 4.35 speed; see his highlight videos. Both Landry and Taylor are great run stuffers at the line of scrimmage. They could be the most feared safety tandem in the entire league. Both are also good in pass coverage, allowing Williams to blitz one of them while dropping the other one back in pass coverage. Landry is a great leader on the field and in the secondary, something we badly need since we lost Ryan Clark. Taylor will benefit immensely from that. In short, he will allow Williams to do so much more with our defense to create pressure on the QB. Remember, opposing offenses can game plan much easier for one stud DE or DT than they can for a two stud safety’s.

For me, as we stand right now, Landry is the clear cut choice if we stay at #6. We would be getting the best player available as well as filling a position of need. That is why I think the experts are now projecting the Skins to take Landry rather than a d-linemen at #6. A safety is… well… a safer pick for the money, at least this year it is, based on the quality of players coming out. We will still have a chance to get d-line help later in the draft, as that position has the most depth this year.

Sorry for the length.

You've thought about this a lot, haven't you?

Some points in response:

I agree that the defensive line positions are a bit muddled, with no clear consensus as to who is the best (although Okoye is the one who seems to have the momentum right now). And Landry does seem to be the experts' choice at the safety position. However, just because he stands head and shoulders above the other safeties, it does not follow that he is a better player than any of those highly rated defensive linemen. He's just a better bet at his particular position. Note: I'm not saying that Landry isn't better than Okoye, Branch, Adams and Anderson - just that you can't automatically draw that conclusion from the fact that he's the standout safety.

No doubt, the combine, pro days, and all the other evaluation has caused some players to move up, and others to move down on draft boards. But we don't know for certain where players have moved to on the Redskins' board. There are rumours that the Redskins weren't overly impressed with Branch or Adams - I can't recall reading anything about Anderson in this regard. Who knows, it's possible that Landry isn't even rated in the top twenty by the Redskins people!

And all this is before considering the hideous possibility of somebody called Landry playing for the Redskins

As for the defence's problems in 2006, I agree that the secondary was victimised - the stats don't lie. However, I would argue that the problems in pass coverage were largely attributable to Springs' injury troubles, the lack of decent depth at cornerback, and the poor pass rush from the front seven. All of this was a bigger factor, in my opinion, than the problems of Archuletta and the other Redskin's safeties. I would be happy to see the safety position upgraded, but I just don't think it's near the top of priorities.

As for the cap implications, I think we can expect to have to pay huge money to be able to resign Taylor beyond his rookie contract (or even keep him from holding out long before he gets to the end of the contract). Add in the appropriate contract for Landry, and that's a heck of lot of cap to be tying up on the safety position. Not necessarily a back-breaker, but certainly a hindrance to future flexibiilty.

Landry may be a leader on the field in college ball, but it's unlikely that that could translate to the pros during his first couple of years. I certainly wouldn't expect him to step into this semi mythical Ryan Clark role of mentor and guru to Taylor. More likely, Taylor would be expected to help the rookie get lined up right as well as look after his own business. I think I'd rather stick with what we've got at safety, than ask Taylor to take on that responsibility.

Stacked against all of that is the importance that Williams' definitely places on his safeties. They are key to the scheme, and I have little doubt that Williams would love to have Landry to play with. I'm sure he would enable Williams to do a lot of things with the defence. But I can't help thinking that a front four who can pressure the QB play after play would be a bigger impact.

As I said in my previous post (I think I did anyway - it's so long ago that I started this one!), there is a strong argument for taking the best available, unless a good trade down is possible. That approach may well see Landry in Burgundy and Gold next season. For all my desire to see a defensive lineman drafted, a couple of free agent signings by the Redskins in the next two weeks could change my mind! But I don't think the sort of player they need is going to be available through that route.

So, I don't absolutely rule out our drafting Landry - I'd just like to think that we could do something else that would help our defence more than drafting a safety in round one. If it isn't possible to get suitable "bang for our buck" for the d-line during the draft, then maybe, just maybe, Landry could be the best route.

Uk, I agree with every assessment you've made. I'm just trying to understand why the experts have changed their minds regarding the Skins 1st round draft choice. And the more I think about it, the more it makes sense... to me. Yes, I have thought about this a lot.

I don't think the cap ramifications will hinder the Skins from re-signing Taylor and ey next year. The cap number goes up next year and there will be some cuts made and some contracts reworked. I don't really worry about their cap responsibilities.

At this moment, we have retained all of our picks next year. We will be able to beef up the o-line and the d-line next year. I haven't given up on our current d-line. I honestly believe Carter, Griffin and Golston are solid.

I think we keep Daniels and I think he is still productive. When healthy, Daniels actually played pretty well last year. And don't forget about Evans, he's a decent player. I agree that Grif, Salave'a and Daniels are all getting up there in age, but I still believe they all have, at the very least, one good year left in them. I think some folks have given up on them completely. I'm not one of them. I'm not ready to kick them to the curb just yet. And a stud DE is still obtainable this year.

There are two ways at looking at our defensive problems. You can say that creating a better pass rush will in return help the pass defense, and you can say that solidifying the secondary will help the pass rush; simply by allowing you to do more with the schemes. Both are right, so both have to be evaluated. It appears that the Skins want to bolster the LB core and the secondary, at this point, and we've all agreed and liked the free agent acquisitions so far.

And you are right, we have no idea what is happening behind closed doors at Redskins Park right now. That's the way it should be. But I think the experts are currently taking this position for a reason, and they have more insight than I do. I agree with them at this point; that if we stay at #6, Landry would be the best bang for the buck, the best defensive player available, and will fill a position of need for us.

For those interested in his coverage skills, here are some of his overall accomplishments.

CAREER
Considered one of the top defensive backs in all of college football as a senior in 2006 ... Opted to return to LSU for a senior season despite being projected as a late first round pick in the NFL Draft following his junior season ... Capped his career by starting 48 straight games for the Tigers ... Finished career by playing in 52 games, starting 48 times ... Credited with 315 career tackles, 12 interceptions and eight sacks ... The 12 interceptions rank ties for the third-highest total in school history ... His 315 career tackles ranks as the seventh-highest total in LSU history ... Had a total of 40 defended passes in his career, which ranks second behind Corey Webster’s 49 in school history ... Capped career with at least one tackle in 51 straight games ... Joins Shawn Burks (1983-85) as the only players in school history to lead the Tigers in tackles three times during their career ... Landry led LSU in total tackles as a freshman in 2003, in 2004 and again in 2006 ... One of the most decorated defensive backs in school history, earning First-Team All-America honors in 2006 and Third-Team All-America recognition in 2005 ... Also a two-time First-Team All-SEC selection in both 2005 and 2006 ... Selected to play in the 2007 Senior Bowl in Mobile, Ala.

You also have to think about trading down scenario. LaRon Landry has interest from several teams Falcons, Vikings and maybe Miami. What better way to put your team in a position to trade down then to say your interested in a player that other teams want. A team like the Falcons that has extra picks in the second round. Also you have willing accomplices in this little rouse in Clayton and Mel K. because they would love to see more trades on draft day.

hogred wrote:You also have to think about trading down scenario. LaRon Landry has interest from several teams Falcons, Vikings and maybe Miami. What better way to put your team in a position to trade down then to say your interested in a player that other teams want. A team like the Falcons that has extra picks in the second round. Also you have willing accomplices in this little rouse in Clayton and Mel K. because they would love to see more trades on draft day.

I think everyone here would agree with and prefer the trading down scenario. We... (or maybe just me ) are merely discussing this in case they can't trade down and have to stay at number 6, which, by the way, is a very real possibility. Remember, teams have very little, if any at all, control over the situation when they want to trade down. Those terms are contingent on players still available and other teams willing to trade up, which rarely happens this high in the draft any more. Maybe this year it will happen though, you never know. But the Skins need to be verrrrrry careful in making sure they get equal or better value, all within 15 minutes, I might add, and not just make a retarded trade to get more players.

I hope we can trade down as well, but not for anything less than a mid-to-high 2nd rounder, at the very least. I would not trade down if it only came with a 3rd rounder. I would even consider packaging together a couple of our day 2 picks to move up a bit as well. Because there's no way 4 rookies from the 5th - 7th round on day 2 will make the final 53-man roster. This year I think you make the best deals you possibly can, and I think you really focus on next years draft, when we have all of our picks.

Please allow me to elaborate my line of thinking a little further.

I believe, as many others do, that there is a major hole at the safety position. I am not confident in Fox, Prioleau and Stoutmire. They are good for depth but are really just 2nd tier players.

If Taylor moves up into the box to add run support, as some of you suggest he should be doing, I would still be very concerned with the middle of the secondary.

Hypothetical:

We need a DE, no doubt. Let's say for the sake of this argument, we take Gaines Adams at #6.

Let's say that Gaines has a huge year and produces three sacks a game. In addition, he is responsible for ten hurries, meaning he almost got to the QB and forced a bad throw or an interception. And even further, let's say on an additional 10 plays, he was doubled teamed; took on two blockers leaving a huge lane for Marcus to blitz the QB.

Sounds nice, doesn't it?

In the NFL today, it is not uncommon for teams like Philly, who run the West Coast offense, to throw the ball 40-50 times a game. In the aforementioned scenario involving Adams, which by the way would never happen, he would only be involved in about half of all passing plays, meaning there are still about 20+ passing plays he has no involvement in.

That still concerns me.

The addition of Landry allows for more confidence and a wider range of formations and stunts. Now you can put Taylor OR Landry up in the box for run support and pass rushing, and still have the middle of the secondary covered with a speedy safety. And contrary to popular belief right now, Taylor is still very good in coverage. He was forced to cover the whole field last year due to the hole at the other safety position.

I agree with the popular philosophy that when drafting that high, you take the best player available and build around them. If Landry is still there at #6, he is by far the best defensive player available... and oh by the way, fills a void in our defense and is considered to be a position of need... so it's a bonus.

Some experts now have Gaines going at #2 to the Lions. IMO, that's a huge mistake to draft Adams that high. Last night on the draft special, Mike Mayock pointed out several weaknesses in Adams game and talked about how he was man-handled in the Boston College game by a no-name tackle. That concern's me. The tackles in the NFL are a lot bigger, stronger and more agile.

So... my top two d-linemen choices would be Gaines and Okoye.


Gaines vs. Landry - too many question marks surrounding Adams, elevating the level of risk. Far less risk associated with Landry.

Okoye vs. Landry - Okoye's lack of experience concerns me and would elevate his risk factor. Okoye had one nice year as a starter while Landry was a four year starter, and had big numbers every year. And the amount of 'starts' is a huge consideration when picking that high. Okoye could turn out to be great, but with the little starting experience he has, much more risk involved, IMO.

In conclusion, I'm just as concerned right now about the hole at safety, along with the hole at DE. I want that ball in front to me, not behind me. We are all concerned about the pass rush and our run stuffing ability. Well, a safety tandem like that will allow Williams to do just that; rush the passer and stuff the run and he'll have much more flexibility scheme wise.

Now, this is all only if we are unable to trade down and are forced to pick at #6. IMO, Landry has more value and less risk at #6. I'm all in favor of trading down and maybe picking up a DE and Merriweather. That would be sweet because you would then have filled two holes.

For those interested, and I know some aren't, but Landry will be the topic of discussion tonight on The Path To The Draft at 6:30pm on the NFL Network.

SkinsFreak wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:And all the while that our new stellar safety partnership was creating confusion, opposition running backs would be pounding their way into our secondary, and opposition quarterbacks would be sitting back in the pocket smoking cigars.

With all do respect, I don’t think that would be the case at all.

Let’s take a minute to rationalize this move for LaRon Landry.

First of all, there in no argument from anyone that the Skins are in need of d-line help. A few months ago, every fan and every expert were projecting the Skins to draft a d-linemen with the #6 pick. Some said Adams or Branch and others said Anderson or Okoye. Now, 14 days before the draft, experts like Kiper, Clayton and others, have a much different opinion. Why? What’s happened to the initial projections and what's happened since then?

Well… what’s happened is the combine, scouting, interviews and endless hours of film review and study.

Next, there has been no consensus by any of the experts as to who the best DT or the best DE is, although Adams is currently leading the bunch. There has been varying opinions between Adams, Anderson, Branch and Okoye. Recently, Branch and Anderson have been falling quickly on draft boards around the league. There has been question’s raised regarding their work ethic, weight and eating habits.

There is however, no disagreement, what so ever, across the board, as to who the best safety is in this years draft, and that is LaRon Landry.

Let’s take a brief look at the Skins defense. If everyone can put on their memory caps for a minute, it was our secondary that took a beating in the early stages of the 2006 season. Specifically, it was the middle of the field in our secondary where our defense was exploited. Williams was forced to make a change by dropping everyone back into pass coverage as a way to remedy this problem. We all know the injuries that were sustained to every unit on our defense last year and Williams had to compensate for that.

Well, when you only rush four guys, limit the amount of stunts and blitzes, and drop everyone back into coverage, it is difficult to get pressure on the QB and to generate sacks. That is a fact. Let’s not forget the term used a lot in the NFL, the term known as a “coverage sack”. The point being, when you have confidence in your secondary, you are free to create more schemes to get pressure on the QB, in the form of stunts, LB and safety blitzes and corner blitzes, all things we know Williams likes to do and something he had to shy away from last year, due to the significant amount of injuries.

Apart from Taylor, our current crop of safety’s are average at best. I would rate Prioleau slightly better than average, but he is coming off a major injury. Players coming off these types of injuries take time to rebound; Jansen was a perfect example of this last year, coming off the Achilles injury. He had a tender foot and was not very confident, therefore affecting his level of play. But, we now have depth at the safety position, something we hear about around here all the time; needing depth. So now we have it.

Then, we have to take into consideration the size of the contract, and the amount of guaranteed money the #6 pick will command. With no general consensus as to the best d-linemen out there, it would be less of a risk to give that contract and guaranteed money to a guy like Landry, much like they did with Taylor.

Landry would be well worth it. He makes tons of plays in the backfield and has no problem getting to the QB with his 4.35 speed; see his highlight videos. Both Landry and Taylor are great run stuffers at the line of scrimmage. They could be the most feared safety tandem in the entire league. Both are also good in pass coverage, allowing Williams to blitz one of them while dropping the other one back in pass coverage. Landry is a great leader on the field and in the secondary, something we badly need since we lost Ryan Clark. Taylor will benefit immensely from that. In short, he will allow Williams to do so much more with our defense to create pressure on the QB. Remember, opposing offenses can game plan much easier for one stud DE or DT than they can for a two stud safety’s.

For me, as we stand right now, Landry is the clear cut choice if we stay at #6. We would be getting the best player available as well as filling a position of need. That is why I think the experts are now projecting the Skins to take Landry rather than a d-linemen at #6. A safety is… well… a safer pick for the money, at least this year it is, based on the quality of players coming out. We will still have a chance to get d-line help later in the draft, as that position has the most depth this year.

Sorry for the length.

Good stuff. I agree totally.

I hope that whoever we pick will get to play this year. Greg Williams seems to have an issue playing 1st year players.

I think that Laron Landry would be the safe pick, the safety position is a relatively easy transition from college to the pros, it is an instinct position
.

BernieSki wrote:I hope that whoever we pick will get to play this year. Greg Williams seems to have an issue playing 1st year players.

I think that Laron Landry would be the safe pick, the safety position is a relatively easy transition from college to the pros, it is an instinct position
.

Agreed. And nowadays, teams don't have just one great receiver, they have two or three. You can't double up on Glenn and leave TO tearing down the middle of the field on a deep post. Especially when you've called a run-stop formation, and have brought Taylor up in the box. You need help deep. A safety IS considered to be one of the safest picks in the draft, as they pointed out last night on the Path To The Draft show.

Yeah but can Landry run with either owens or glenn?

BernieSki wrote:I hope that whoever we pick will get to play this year. Greg Williams seems to have an issue playing 1st year players.

I think that Laron Landry would be the safe pick, the safety position is a relatively easy transition from college to the pros, it is an instinct position
.

Why do you and everyone else say that?

So what he didn't play Rocky until week 15, and obviously there was a reason. He didn't not play him because he didn't like him. He fricken traded up just to pick him.

It was obvious that Rocky was struggling when he played in week 15 so that's why he didn't play ealier.

But what about Golston, Montgomery, Sean Taylor, Carlos Rogers... all those guys played extensive amounts of time during their rookie seasons.

God, one rookie doesn't play until late in the season and all the sudden Greg Williams doesn't play rookies.

Laron Landry would play quick. No matter who is coaching.......

Gibbs4Life wrote:Yeah but can Landry run with either owens or glenn?

Who but a few in this league can? Taylor can run with Ownes or Glenn. I also think Landry can with help under them and him over the top of either one of them.

I know that a lot of the top 5 prospects came to town and were interviewed by the Skins. Has Landry been to D.C. yet? Anyone hear whether he had an interview with the Skins?

Justice Hog wrote:I know that a lot of the top 5 prospects came to town and were interviewed by the Skins. Has Landry been to D.C. yet? Anyone hear whether he had an interview with the Skins?

I'm sure he did. Gibbs said they were bringing everyone in. I know Williams himself went to LaRons pro day.

air_hog wrote:But what about Golston, Montgomery, Sean Taylor, Carlos Rogers... all those guys played extensive amounts of time during their rookie seasons.

Facts? What kind of argument is that? Rocky played well, but that doesn't mean he was prepared well it means he would have played just as well earlier. They play other rookies too, including 5th and 6th rounders? Ignore that, doesn't fit the talking point.

You're right and I'm with you. Obviously they are going to play rookies if they feel they have the skills and experience to do well versus the people who they are competing against. That means they are ready and they compare to the people they are playing. Rookies are starting from zero in the NFL, but there is no policy and never would be against playing them.

But don't expect to stop hearing, "we don't play rookies" anyway despite the facts you clearly know it's just not true.

Gregg Williams' reluctance to play rookies is really only a phenomenon of the first few weeks of the season. Sean Taylor started his 3rd game and never looked back. Carlos started his 3rd game, as did Golston (although unexpectedly).

Rocky was the exception to the pattern, and since he was the high profile pick (and Holdman was his superior on the depth chart) people were getting frustrated. Also, the fact that we didn't play Jason Campbell for a year also gave the Redskins as a whole that reputation of sitting draft picks, which in turn reflects on Gregg Williams (even though he has nothing to do with starting Campbell).

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

air_hog wrote:But what about Golston, Montgomery, Sean Taylor, Carlos Rogers... all those guys played extensive amounts of time during their rookie seasons.

Facts? What kind of argument is that? Rocky played well, but that doesn't mean he was prepared well it means he would have played just as well earlier. They play other rookies too, including 5th and 6th rounders? Ignore that, doesn't fit the talking point.

You're right and I'm with you. Obviously they are going to play rookies if they feel they have the skills and experience to do well versus the people who they are competing against. That means they are ready and they compare to the people they are playing. Rookies are starting from zero in the NFL, but there is no policy and never would be against playing them.

But don't expect to stop hearing, "we don't play rookies" anyway despite the facts you clearly know it's just not true.

What?

Your first 3 sentences make no sense.

The only rookie we didn't was Rocky, that's it.

The only reason you guys think this is because everyone liked Rocky, but obviously the coaches didn't feel he was ready to play. And it turns out they were right becuase when he finally did play, he looked a little lost out there.

I couldn't understand anything you said in your post, and I don't understand why you think we don't play rookies

air_hog wrote:I couldn't understand anything you said in your post, and I don't understand why you think we don't play rookies

I think he was agreeing with you.

The killer clue was here:

You're right and I'm with you.

Unless I understood the post less than you did.

UK Skins Fan wrote:I think he was agreeing with you.

The killer clue was here:

Kazoo wrote:You're right and I'm with you.

Unless I understood the post less than you did.

You got it right, thanks! Didn't mean to confuse anyone, but I was being facetious in the beginning so I tried to be clearer later. Though I thought starting with "Facts? What kind of argument is that" was a tip off too.